"...When He [Jesus] saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." Matt 9:36

"Do not rob the poor, because he is poor... for the Lord will take up their case and plunder those who plunder them." Proverbs 22:22-23

Friday, March 11, 2011

"It's Like Gettin' Married!" - So Be Sure to Submit to Your Pastor!

Jerry Johnson, president of Criswell College, was flown in to preach for Mac this past Sunday (3/6/11) while Mac was stomping around the Holy Land.

Good sermon, preached about the Bible, hit some favorite SBC themes, but then Jerry hit the ball out of the park with the money quote of the day that was sure to earn him an extra honorarium bonus:

"My pastor is Steve Swafford and I am to submit to him in that church member/pastor relationship. I am to follow his leadership. You're to do that here at First Baptist Jacksonville with Pastor Mac Brunson. When you voted him in what you were saying was 'God has appointed you to be our leader.' It's like gettin' married! 'God has chosen you as the one, and I'm going to follow you.'"

Well now, hold on there partner. I don't think any part of that quote is accurate.

- When we vote for a pastor, we are not saying "God has appointed you to be our leader." We are saying, "we'd like to hire you come be our pastor." The pastor might think God appointed him, but the congregation offered a job with salary and benefits and retirement.

- where is the "church member/pastor relationship" in the Bible where I have the position of "church member" and he has the "pastor" title, and I am to submit to him and follow him?

- It is absolute absurdity to describe our relationship to a pastor as "getting married" to him. We're the bride, and he is the bridegroom? Not only is that not a pleasant thought, it is nowhere in the bible, although Paige Patterson did tell SWBTS students Mac never got a honeymoon. Sorry Jerry, but us pew sitters know enough of our Bible to know that we are not married to our pastor, and we know that the bible says it is our relationship to Jesus Christ as his church that is likened to a marriage relationship. Maybe you just slipped and ad-libbed that, but you insult our intelligence when you make such claims.

I suppose the argument could be made that the way some mega pastors treat their congregations, I can see how that might be likened to a certain part of the marriage relationship, but I had best stop there before I get in more trouble already.

"It's like gettin' married! 'God has chosen you as the one, and I'm going to follow you.'""

Being Christ-like does not make yo Christ. Nice twist, you ought to be on dancing with the stars.

"The pastor might think God appointed him, but the congregation offered a job with salary and benefits and retirement."

I see the ignorance on God calling men to pastor / preach still lurks in the anti crowd.

"where is the "church member/pastor relationship" in the Bible where I have the position of "church member" and he has the "pastor" title, and I am to submit to him and follow him?"

The bible speaks of the body of Christ as a family and each family has a leader who in accountable before Christ and it is not the wife. Paul was very authoritative and taught his students to be the same.

"It is absolute absurdity to describe our relationship to a pastor as "getting married" to him."

He didn't. Are you so dense you can not understand what was being stated?

To me, the problem is that pastors and churches are not really like families. You aren't connected by blood or legally, as in a marriage.

Churches are practically more like a grocery store. If you don't like one because you're treated poorly there, you simply stop going and pick a different one.

I'm not saying anything other than this is how it works in real life practice.

This is also why church discipline might sound good in some Bible verses, but rarely works out well in real life. Most churches are smart enough not to even try it.

I think in Catholic churches, you simply go to the local parish church. In Protestant churches, you can go wherever you enjoy going. It's totally voluntary.

My main point is pastors are trying to give you the illusion that they are in control of you and are an authority over you, when in reality, they are powerless. YOU have all the power to control where you go to church and also how much money you choose to give them.

Now, lets see. The church is the "bride" of Christ so that means the pastor is also a 'bride'. Not the bridegroom which is a metaphor for Christ.

they are all metaphors...taken too far by pastors, of course.

And there is NO where that the bible says a husband has authority over his wife EXCEPT in 1 Corin 7...and it says she has the same authority over him.

And these guys always say they "submit" to their pastor...but they are never there! They are busy out speaking and traveling.

Here is a question for ya. Al Mohler goes to Highview. Russell Moore is a pastor there. Russell Moore is also a Dean at SBTS. So, does Mohler submit to him for a few hours at church and then Moore submits to Mohler while at work?

This kind of thinking went out 500 years ago with a thing you might have heard of called the Protestant Reformation. I guess next they will be saying the American Revolution was a sin and that God will never bless America because of it and that we have to submit to the Queen of England.

You're to do that here at First Baptist Jacksonville with Pastor Mac Brunson. When you voted him in what you were saying was 'God has appointed you to be our leader.' It's like gettin' married! 'God has chosen you as the one, and I'm going to follow you.'"=================================

God didn't choose Mac Brunson = the Search Committe did & the people in the pews honored their suggestion. Poor Mac, really we pay someone to come in and give a pep rally for him. How convenient.

Jerry Johnson surely did not submit to "his husband/pastor" Robert Jeffress the first time that he was president of Criswell College. In fact, they got in a little dust up here in Texas over the college and the new building campaign and funding. In fact, Jerry Johnson resigned the presidency of the college over it. He is a blow hard, I know this from personal experience (I am just a little pion)I am a pastor of a small church and I always thought that the church was the bride of Christ! I guess I need to go back to Criswell College and get this whole theology correct, I am missing it!Kyle

By his logic, the members of a church have no say-so at all. In fact, how can the members of a church ever decide to replace a pastor?

There is, in my opinion, an unresolvable tension between the concepts of spiritual leadership in a church and the priesthood of the believer. I can't get from the NT the concept of one man, one vote democracy on all issues. But I also can't get the idea that the Pastor is THE leader and must be followed in whatever he suggests.

There are all sorts of polity arrangements to try and deal with this tension. At one end, you have ecclesiastical authority and at the other pure congregational authority. Different churches have tried to sort that out with different types of arrangements.

But, for me, the idea that the church members decide to hire a pastor, and from that point forward the pastor makes all the decisions and the people must follow is a really bad idea.

Hey Jerry, go preach your message to all the SBC preachers who are divorced! Then preach it to their deacons, music directors, SS teachers who divorced their mates - your reasoning is crazy!

You are telling us to submit to men who have not handled their own personal commitments - thank you, but as for me & my family we will be under the authority of the Holy Spirit and might add we been blessed abundantly.

That statement hit a raw nerve in my body - seen too many of these preachers throw hissy fits whenever they were critized even in the slightest manner when they didn't get their way. Not real men, but spoiled brats who did not practice the fruit of the spirit.

The main problem is that Churches are not like a family but more like businesses. You would not do what is done in your family as is done in churches. Our Pastor is a CEO, Deacons other officials and the regular members just the labor pool. Our tithe has become a tariff.

I think most of you are greatly mistaken or unable to understand a very crucial idea. Just because you vote to hire a pastor to lead your church, doesn't mean you must follow him step by step blindly without any freedom or right to question his leadership and decisions. If you hire a pastor and discover that through the years his decision making ability has been less than par of what your expectations for him have been, and you voice these concerns to the appropriate people within the fellowship and nothing changes, then all you have to do is simply leave. Mr. Rich, if you had done this in the first place, you and your family would have been much better off. You willingly came to First Baptist. Surely, it couldn't have been that hard to willingly leave.

"If you hire a pastor and discover that through the years his decision making ability has been less than par of what your expectations for him have been, and you voice these concerns to the appropriate people within the fellowship and nothing changes, then all you have to do is simply leave."

If you visit Africa and find that a large number of the population is starving and that the government is corrupt and preventable diseases are killing thousands, hey, all you have to do is leave.

"Mr. Rich, if you had done this in the first place, you and your family would have been much better off."

If you had done this in the first place and not stayed and tried to make things better for others (as the Bible teaches us to do), you would have been much better off.

"You willingly came to First Baptist. Surely, it couldn't have been that hard to willingly leave."

You willingly came to Africa. Surely, it couldn't have been that hard to willingly leave.

Lesson Learned: only think about yourself. Never try to help others if it is going to involve any type of personal sacrifice or inconvenience.

On one level Johnson has it right, that the members of FBCJ are in a New Testament covenant with Mac Brunson. The part that was left unpreached is that all members of the Church are in a NT covenant of submission and preferance to one another. It's not that Jerry Johnson preached a false message, it was a complete message. (Remember, the truth/the whole truth/nothing but the truth!) Johnson preached a truism, but it wasn't the whole truism.

And while I am at it, the thought of all Christians on the Watchdog blog, including Tom himself, might want to consider what it means in a NT covenant with one another - to prefer others as better than themselves and to be submissive to one another. That's not preached much is it?

Think about something for me. Historically, the teachings on submission have been used to justify slavery, slaves submit yourself to your master; justify wife beating, wives submit yourself to your husband; justify Jim Crow laws, “blacks were made to be submissive to whites, etc.”

All of this has at one time or another been preached and taught by Southern Baptist preachers as they stood behind “the sacred desk.

Now, I hope we all agree these teaching are not only wrong but come straight from the pit of hell.

So my question is, as these so called “men of God” stood behind “the sacred desk” were they speaking as God? That is, after all, what speaking from the sacred desk means, the man is speaking as God.

Does the teaching of submission permit and justify abuse?

It seems to me that the teaching of submission has traditionally meant allowing people in authority to justify and continue their bad behavior.

"You willingly came to First Baptist. Surely, it couldn't have been that hard to willingly leave."

March 11, 2011 12:46 PM

You have no idea the hurt & upsetting it is to pull up and leave a beloved church after years of being a member because of a new preacher who comes on board, fires good pastors, hires his family & friends to make it HIS church & you do as I say. Yes, it is hard!

The majority of people now at FBCJ are not staying because of Mac Brunson but because of their deep love for one another - most simply don't like him.

So. AJ, educate me. What is biblical submission? Are you implying that in all situations we are to submit ourselves to authority even if that authority is abusive or use their position for undue personal benefit?

I have shared many times how my pastor describes his position. “This is you church and I am just the pastor. The church is the members’ and not the pastor’s. I am here to serve you not the other way around.” You simply choose to ignore what you don’t wish to hear.

You know the funny thing is if you read what Mac said in his deposition Mac was exactly right in what he said to the Discipline Committee. Which still leaves an unanswered question; Mac, the preacher, acknowledged authority and spiritual leader of the church, instructed the Discipline Committee to “leave him alone” but the Discipline Committee failed to submit to Mac’s authority and proceeded with disciplinary action anyway so the question is what discipline did the Discipline Committee members receive for failing to submit to their pastor? Or is submission just something that applies when we want it to? Oh, you may attack me if you wish, I really hope it makes you feel better somehow and will help you through your day.

You say God appoints pastors. How is that done exactly? Also, if churchly authority is never to be questioned or challenged, how do you justify your participation in a Protestant church? Were the founding fathers unjustified in rebelling against God’s anointed sovereign and representative on earth and head of the church, the King of England?

"If you hire a pastor and discover that through the years his decision making ability has been less than par of what your expectations for him have been, and you voice these concerns to the appropriate people within the fellowship and nothing changes, then all you have to do is simply leave."

If you visit Africa and find that a large number of the population is starving and that the government is corrupt and preventable diseases are killing thousands, hey, all you have to do is leave.

"Mr. Rich, if you had done this in the first place, you and your family would have been much better off."

If you had done this in the first place and not stayed and tried to make things better for others (as the Bible teaches us to do), you would have been much better off.

"You willingly came to First Baptist. Surely, it couldn't have been that hard to willingly leave."

You willingly came to Africa. Surely, it couldn't have been that hard to willingly leave.

Lesson Learned: only think about yourself. Never try to help others if it is going to involve any type of personal sacrifice or inconvenience.

Paul was wrong when he commended the Bereans for checking up on him.-----------------------------------

What the HELL does Africa have to do with your spiritual walk and the church you attend? That is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever read. Since your underdeveloped mind seems to be misfiring from one neuron to another while trying to comprehend my points, I will try to pull your head out of your ass and explain this to you in a better fashion.

Since there is so much talk about the necessity of a business approach for running a church, and the need for transparency and accountability, I will use just that angle to explain myself.

You, as a tither (or giver under grace, whatever you want to call yourself), have a degree of power in your church. Your wallet has power. More importantly, what you do with what's in your wallet demonstrates an even greater display of power. Here's where I will bring in the business analogy. When you join a church you are like an investor, who decides to join in on a great business opportunity. When you tithe or give money to the church, you are simply investing in the ministry of that church, much like an investor would invest in the business. When you elect or vote for a certain man to be pastor and lead your church, you and the rest of the membership are like investors voting unanimously to elect a CEO to run the business. Only its a church. If you and the other members decide for whatever reason that your pastor is not performing at the level you'd like, you simply stop investing your money and move on to another business opportunity (church).

"You have no idea the hurt & upsetting it is to pull up and leave a beloved church after years of being a member because of a new preacher who comes on board, fires good pastors, hires his family & friends to make it HIS church & you do as I say. Yes, it is hard!"

IF ALL YOU REALLY HATE BRUNSON SO MUCH CON HIM INTO A COMPROMISING POSITION OF MORAL FAILURE AND RECORD IT AND PUT IT IN THE MEDIA AND ON THE WEB AND YOUR PROBLEM WILL BE SOLVED. LAST TIME A CHECKED HE IS LIKE WD WITH FEET OF CLAY.

"It seems to me that the teaching of submission has traditionally meant allowing people in authority to justify and continue their bad behavior."

Study the Greek word for submission and you will find it is voluntary...or as I should say, it comes from the Holy Spirit. It is for ALL true believers. Even married men to wives. (See Eph 5:21...a much ignored part of that much repeated passage)

In the 1st Century the word was a step up for believing women who were considered chattel.

In the Body of Christ, the only authority is Jesus Christ. Overseers are not your authority. If they were meant to be, you would not need the Holy Spirit. They were saved by the same grace you were and you are to become "spirutally mature". A true "elder" would want this for you.

For someone in "authority", Paul sure spent a lot of time pleading and persuading. :o)

Call Rome. They can tell you how it is done. And millions believe that it is true.

I have found the SBC becoming more and more Romanesque for years. We practically have infant baptism, the priesthood is rarely mentioned and we have elevated pastors to near pope like status. Few understand soul competency and we are constantly told we cannot understand the Word unless someone with a title tells us what it says.

They are desperate to replace the Holy Spirit in people's lives and replace Him with mere humans. Much like the Catholic church did.

Remember, every single true believer is "called" and God appointed for some spiritual gift within the Body. There are no exclusive Christians. There is no caste system of Christians. That is a Roman concept.

IF ALL YOU REALLY HATE BRUNSON SO MUCH CON HIM INTO A COMPROMISING POSITION OF MORAL FAILURE AND RECORD IT AND PUT IT IN THE MEDIA AND ON THE WEB AND YOUR PROBLEM WILL BE SOLVED. LAST TIME A CHECKED HE IS LIKE WD WITH FEET OF CLAY.

March 11, 2011 4:24 PM

Sorry, only Brunson followers and cronies think like that.

Besides, Ted Haggard is making a comeback. The church is so spiritually dead they would find it more "human" for their pastor to have fallen.

Only its a church. If you and the other members decide for whatever reason that your pastor is not performing at the level you'd like, you simply stop investing your money and move on to another business opportunity (church).

March 11, 2011 3:34 PM

So, by your logic, if I left the Peoples Temple because I saw certain questionable things going on, I should just leave and not try to warn others?

Problem with your logic is that Mac and FBCJax want to be a public entity. It is not a private club or private corporation. They go on the radio, TV and put all kinds of media out there online, etc.

They strive to be very public so they can recruit more followers and more money. It is the duty of those who left to say why and what they saw wrong there.

After all, there is such a thing as the universal Body of Christ. I know they don't teach that anymore but it is true. And it is the duty of all believers to encourage others to be Bereans. Not to follow man or a movement.

You are just trying to censor what you do not like and imply it is sin. Nice try. You drank the kool aid.

"After all, there is such a thing as the universal Body of Christ. I know they don't teach that anymore but it is true. And it is the duty of all believers to encourage others to be Bereans. Not to follow man or a movement."

This is a good point and one I always discuss with my Catholic friends. Be a Berean. Don't just believe the priest or the pope.

Had my annual performance review. At the end my boss asked if I had any final comments. I said "You know Bob, when you hired me, what you were saying was 'God has appointed you to be our manager'. You know Bob, it is kind of like being married."

Really? You've heard pastors say that the rank and file believer can't understand the Word unless someone with a title tells them what it says? Just asking.

March 12, 2011 10:39 AM

Perhaps you could tell me exactly what pastors are doing every Sunday morning for 20-30 minutes? Telling the ignorant pew sitter what the Word says? Some proof text with 3 pts, others teach extra biblical things and make them salvic in nature.

They don't put it like that...but the meaning is clear. They have the title and education and are "God appointed" so they must interpret what it means for us "ignorants" as Mohler called us.

Being a pastor you might not have experienced actually going to a pastor and disagreeing with his exegesis. They are never wrong, you know.

You know, kinda like Mac proclaiming the tithe is for today and we are robbing God if we do not pay tax....er.... tithe.

Or the guy on this post who says we are in a marriage relationship with the pastor and must submit to him but nothing about him submitting to believers as part of the priesthood.

The question is why should we listen to them in the first place? Because they have a title? Went to seminary? Are "God Appointed"?

That is the question I pray every single pew sitter will start asking themselves. And they will study and know the Holy Spirit is the best teacher to illuminate the truth of the Word. Not ONE guy week after week who is paid.

Methinks we should TEST everything and get our heads in the Word for ourselves.

"Methinks we should TEST everything and get our heads in the Word for ourselves."

Amen to that. That's exactly what I teach the church I pastor. I believe that the illumination of God's Spirit is for every believer and no one has a special insight that isn't availiable to everyone else.

"Perhaps you could tell me exactly what pastors are doing every Sunday morning for 20-30 minutes? Telling the ignorant pew sitter what the Word says? Some proof text with 3 pts, others teach extra biblical things and make them salvic in nature."

This is where I would have to disagree with you, because preaching or teaching, whether done by a pastor or sunday school teacher or anyone else is not implying that someone knows something that isn't availiable to everyone. God has given people specific gifts, and some have been given the gift of teaching.

Johnson has it right, the members of FBCJ are in covenant with Mac Brunson. The part that was left unpreached is that all members of the Church are in a NT covenant of submission and preferance to one another. Jerry Johnson didn't preached a false message, it was just an incomplete message.

All Christians on the Watchdog blog, including the Dog, might want to consider what it means to be in a NT covenant with one another - to prefer others as better than themselves and to be submissive to one another. That's not preached nor practiced much is it?

This is a foreign concept to WishIHadKnown, he thinks submitting to one another is about slavery and wife beating, and considers it a principle from the "pit of hell" as he writes it.

Actually, WishIHadKnown, here is what submission is about:

- The call to love our neighbor as ourselves. Christ-like love should be the motive in all Church relationships (Matt. 22:37-40; Rom. 13:8-10; 1 John 4:7-12);

I know that the preaching of the "tithe" has been a thorn in the side of many a blogger, and I agree that it is mostly preached incorrectly today. However, it is interesting that I have not seen much belly-aching on here that we don't submit ourselves to one another nearly enough.

Sometimes we gotta lighten up a little, and this came in my email today. Seemed appropriate for the subject:

A few minutes before the church services started, the congregation were sitting in their pews and talking. Suddenly, Satan appeared at the front of the church. Everyone started screaming and running for the front entrance, trampling each other in a frantic effort to get away from evil incarnate. Soon the church was empty except for one elderly gentleman who sat calmly in his pew without moving, seemingly oblivious to the fact that God's ultimate enemy was in his presence. So Satan walked up to the man and said, 'Do you know who I am?'

The man replied, 'Yep, sure do.'

'Aren't you afraid of me?' Satan asked.

'Nope, sure ain't.' said the man.

'Don't you realize I can kill you with one word?' asked Satan.

'Don't doubt it for a minute,' returned the old man, in an even tone.

'Did you know that I can cause you profound, horrifying AGONY for all eternity?' persisted Satan.

'Yep,' was the calm reply.

'And you are still not afraid?' asked Satan.

'Nope,' said the old man.

More than a little perturbed, Satan asked, 'Why aren't you afraid of me?'

The local church has to get away from this idea of idolizing the pastor,i.e., submitting to him. He puts his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. The same blood that Jesus shed removes his sin just like ours. There are no favorites or special people on earth just the redeemed who frankly admit that they are formerly lost dying sinners saved by the blood. No ego, no boasting, just saved by the blood of Jesus. Then and only then can they (you and I) have the love of the Holy Spirit and use the gifts that each have for the work of the Kingdom of God.

Folks that really take this seriously, that really care what some minister says (I do not), should enjoy the escapades of Sheen and Lohan. After all, this is nothing more than paying any heed to a clerical fool, in company - and akin to - of the two other shameless people mentioned.

This is good example why the church is on the catapault to oblivion, and may it happen quickly. There is better entertainment elsewhere.

Too bad, also, that the church is not required to pay taxes. All other venues of such must.

There is a family in the church I pastor who has a nine year old son who is autistic.

He has begin to hurt himself and have fits (awake type seizures) where he is banging his head on the wall and hurting himself. We have exhausted the Drs. in this area who will take time to see him. They are either saying now, it will be a 12 month wait or they need to find someone who specializes with this type of stuff.

The family has insurance and we, as a church, will help with travel if needed. IS there a Christian Dr. out there who specializes in children with autism who become self violent.

I may not even be describing it well enough to make sense.

If so, please email me. If not, please pray.

Logan is 9. He looks like he is 4-5. He is the sweetest kid and the family is worn out.

"After all, there is such a thing as the universal Body of Christ. I know they don't teach that anymore but it is true. And it is the duty of all believers to encourage others to be Bereans. Not to follow man or a movement."

Why do we insist on applying the word 'universal' to Catholics? I get that they use it, but in a Christian context, I believe it refers to the body of Christ being made up by the people whose hearts and minds are fixed on Jesus. Nothing more. Catholics can use that word for their own purposes, but I don't believe we have to use the word as they do.

They also use the word 'grace' but their idea of grace and ours is quite different. Same with 'santification, and regeneration'. Add to that are the 'UNIVERSALISTS' churches. Look up Rob Bell, he can explain that to you.

We should be careful about our language and be more precise. There is indeed a universal church and it is in the hearts of minds of true believers. And... yes, there are people from other denominations that are part of the kingdom of God. It is not located in a building on a hill in Rome.

If Catholics want to semi-deify their clergy, that is their problem. We know different. We are never told to worship our Pastors, or to submit to them. We should treat them well. But when they preach heresy, we should indeed be Bereans, study the scriptures for ourselves and make a decision based on Sola Scriptura, not on some half-baked extrapolation that a mere mortal applies to scripture.

I'm not pointing out anyone in particular, but I noticed that it got a serious reaction, that MAY have been a misunderstanding based on the meaning of words. We have so much to worry about in the state of Christianity. I don't think parsing words should be one of them.

This is where I would have to disagree with you, because preaching or teaching, whether done by a pastor or sunday school teacher or anyone else is not implying that someone knows something that isn't availiable to everyone. God has given people specific gifts, and some have been given the gift of teaching.

March 12, 2011 12:21 PM

I double dog dare you to teach the model found in 1 Corin 14 where several teach and the others judge.

But, pastors don't get paid for that model.

What I find dangerous is that people listen to one guy week after week. At some point they are going to grow spiritually past him if they are studying on their own. OR< they will believe whatever he tells them if they are not.

Jon L. Estes said...URGENT NEED!==============================Chuck Colson's daughter Emily has been down the road with a special needs child - you may want to go to her website & see if she has referrals or contacts for this family.

www.emilycolson.com

P.S. Yes, in my opinion, your request was very appropriate for this blog when we have hurting families in need.

You know, Slow, the exit works just as well for you as it does everyone else. I would think a true believer would rather find one of the other fine churches in your area that matches your requirements than cause unnecessary pain and division in a fellowship. If FBCJ, with its suits, hymns and KJV Bibles, made you so unhappy you should have left years ago.

YOUR goal is to get us to hate the Church and hate our Pastor and leave and be bitter.

No one is asking you to hate, just open your closed eyes. It may seem personal has a but it is not. Go where your heart belongs. If it is Hades dressed as an earthly vassal let it be. Christians have a responsibility to inform, Satin has a duty to rule.

"What I find dangerous is that people listen to one guy week after week. At some point they are going to grow spiritually past him if they are studying on their own. OR< they will believe whatever he tells them if they are not."

Given the attitude of the Baptist preachers I've heard, this is the way cults are formed. You have the same guy forcefully saying the same things over and over, week after week. This has a predictable effect on our human brains. It's similar, I think, to the situation with James Ray, who's now on trial for his influence over people that resulted in their deaths. They trusted him. They took him seriously.

I also agree how if you study on your own, you will bypass the preacher and find yourself sitting there on Sunday morning feeling bored and wondering why you're wasting your time. Plus you can't discuss what he's saying. It's just him and the audience. No discussion allowed. That no longer appeals to me.

"I also agree how if you study on your own, you will bypass the preacher and find yourself sitting there on Sunday morning feeling bored and wondering why you're wasting your time. Plus you can't discuss what he's saying. It's just him and the audience. No discussion allowed. That no longer appeals to me."

Then apparently you don't need the church since you know everything. People like you are ridiculous. How about you go start a church since there is nothing that the church or a pastor or teacher can teach you. You do the teaching.

"I also agree how if you study on your own, you will bypass the preacher and find yourself sitting there on Sunday morning feeling bored and wondering why you're wasting your time. Plus you can't discuss what he's saying. It's just him and the audience. No discussion allowed. That no longer appeals to me."

I have a church full of people who have passed me by. They are so bored, they fall asleep.

On the serious side. There are more reasons people are bored in church than surpassing the intelligence of their pastor. Another discussion for another day.

Preaching is not about discussing what the preacher is saying. SS is designed for that. SS is about getting into the word where preaching is about sitting under the word.

I do have a church of people much smarter and more spiritual than me but their hunger for the things of Christ keep them from getting bored. It's amazing how that works.

"Pastor Jon, you really need to seek God about how to jump start that Church."

I tried jumper cables but could not find one negative post to connect it too.

"Music touches the heart....those hymns written in the 1800's are what is putting your people to sleep before you ever get up there to preach. "

You should check us out. We actually do our congregational music after the preaching. I am in the pulpit by 11:08, usually following a welcome and some great video.

"God is not blessing those old hymns like He used too. He has moved on....we need to as well."

When we donated our hymnals we also had 13 people move to that new church start to continue to use them. I just told the church planter they were there to help him get his church off the ground and he could keep whatever he wanted.

He already gave them back. Darn it.

"Please start using humor when you preach...Jesus did!"

I get laughed at a lot when I preach. And I am not a good humorist. I can laugh at a good joke but can't seem to tell one.

"Get rid of your Deacons and replace them with a "Leadership Team" and handpick those Leaders."

What's a deacon? We did have bacon for breakfast at church Sunday. Does that count?

"Jesus hand picked his Leaders...He didn't have Deacons."

What's a deacon? Is it something pickled like that Jesus pickled?

"Use some video. Those Rob Bell videos called "Nooma" are amazing!"

We don't have a church bell. Phones don't even ring most days.

Now videos are a different story. We can't live without our dose of Bob and Larry.

Oh, where is my hairbrush?

"It is a sin to be Boring Brother!"

I admit it. I am a sinner, the chiefest among all men.

"Those people are dying for something that will stir their soul....get rid of that stale bread and give them some Krispy Kreme's!!!"

We are doing that every third Sunday. We put a hot now sign out front and turn it on. We have tripled in number the past 12 weeks. Need to build to hold all the hot now lovers.

The .vs is not about competition but rather about the format of two approaches.

Sunday School is designed (should be at least) where the teacher and students can interact with the word. The teacher and students can dig together specific passages the jewels of treasure in the passages before them.

Worship Service (call it what you want, I'm not big into names) is where a preacher will have a portion of the service to preach (something spoken of in scripture, even a gift is given for this task). Preaching is not a give and take but a delivery of exposition of God's Word. Contextually sound, compassionately shared and relevant to the hearers.

The bible is full of passages where something or someone is in authority. Even Jesus preached with authority. Not all authority is dictator driven. A preacher preaching is in authority over the time God has given him to deliver God's word to God's people and all others God sends that way. He is to preach with authority and those who love God should be hungry enough to get a nibble, a spoon full or a full meal out of what is being shared.

He who has an ear, let him hear.

I do think God would rather us listen for the truths instead of any errors men might make. Both can happen in a sermon.

I'm preaching through Ruth. I have called Ruth, Naomi too many times to mention. Slip of the tongue, unintentional... but one person likes to say I lied.

Absolutely, that's how the word has been hi-jacked by Catholicism. But as I pointed out, how they define words doesn't have to be the way we do.

A quick reference:

http://www.gotquestions.org/universal-local-church.html

I believe it's based on John MacArthur's book. But we also call ourselves the universal church in my church.

Perhaps it is one of the times, we should be careful about when we use it. For many Protestants it certainly does have a negative impact.

I'm not criticizing anyone, certainly not you. I'm just trying to point out, they we get entrenched in words only having one meaning. In this case, I see that is a problem. I don't know what the person who used it may have meant, we just should not assume the meaning.

"Probably does not occur to pastors making their living from "preaching" that SS is closer to the functioning of the Body in scripture than what we call "worship"."

So the method is different now than it was then. No where do you find that the gathering had to be in a house. You can find the charge to preach often by one who preached often.

I do wonder why any believer would fuss over the body getting together weekly and being the ekklesia through small group bible studies and corporate worship. "Shame on them", I guess some would cry.

Scripture tells us where two or more are gathered...

I think the word more could include a large number of people who meet in a large building instead of a home that would not be suitable. And if this occurs as a mega church in our culture, God says He will show up. Hmmmm, interesting.

Those darn scriptures cover all sizes of groups and types of worship as long as it is Jesus centered. What shall we do?

Paul wrote his epistles over and over again to the Brethren not to the Sr. Pastors (they did not exist). He also told the wife to be submissive to her own husband as the authority and that Jesus Christ was the head of the Church. Pastors do not like to be challenged especially when one uses the Bible to show their errors of exposition, teaching, or prophecy. The brethren are those that carry on the great commission whether the pastor believes it or not. Its all about money and ego. However, there are some pastors who really spread the gospel and some even do it for free.

Isn't it odd that about 4,000 to 5,000 pastors leave the ministry every year. I suggest they wern't called to begin with. They find other avenues to grow their wealth like the rest of us. Its also hard to be a little preacher in a town with the mega preachers gathering everyone's attention. The little pastors just do not have the big bucks to market themselves.

Leaving doesn't solve the problem. It only enables the pastor to continue his false teaching and abuse to a new generation.

Abuse is what they hunger for. Take an alligator for example, if a baby alligator is taken from the mother the mother will act as if she never had that baby. It is not important to her. This is called a reptilian. Dr. Brunson is acting like a reptilian. He dose not care about the needs of the people of the concentration. He is only interested in his own affairs.

So are you declaring this method is sin, even if the message is Christocentric?

Why such a fuss over the methods?

March 15, 2011 3:51 PM

There is that evil Jon does as a "pastor"..... putting words in my mouth that were not there.

I did not say it is "sin". I said it is "dangerous"

The "method" we speak of is ONE GUY being the message bearer year after year, week after week with NO interaction or ability to question DURING the preaching.

Lots of false or twisted ideasand concepts can be "preached" as truth for today. Such as "don't touch thine anointed" as applying to pastors today as some sort of special caste system in the NC.

ALL believers in the NC have "anointing". ( See 1 John)

Your teaching this for the NC and pastors only is twisting the Word to benefit yourself,Jon. You have taught it on blogs for many years now supporting errant pastors from those who dare to question them.

"As for me and touch not thine anointed... are you saying you don't want a preacher who will preach all of the word? You do know this is in the book, right"

As usual Jon, you are changing the subject. What does teaching OC concepts for King Saul have to do with pastors in the NC.... where we are told all believers have "anointing" according to 1 John. (There are NO special people in the NC among believers....sorry)

Do you see yourself as a king of Israel like Saul? Is that what you are really communicating to us?

"My interpretation of the passage above is not outside the bounds of orthodoxy."

It is ignorance. I don't care who believes that anointing of a "king" applies today in the "Body of Christ" ... it is complete ignorance of the Covenants. But I know quite a few who make their living off ministry try very hard to get folks to believe it.

Having an earthly king over us in the NC Body is not "Good News". In fact, God was angry when Israel begged for a king. He was their King.

Excellent question! The sermon on the mount was delivered by "God in the Flesh" BEFORE Pentecost.

Do you see the significance of that?

The "Body of Christ" as in Eklessia had not been born yet. It was born out of Pentecost.

And yes, the Sermon on the Mount applies to us. That is not the point. You are trying to argue taht because Jesus spoke to a large "spontaneous group' the sermon on the mount, this translates into "Jesus like figures" who are part of the priesthood preaching (and ONLY they are "official) in front of pew sitters every week...after week...year after year.

Check out 1 Corin 14 for a model that Paul recommends. Then read through the Epistles for examples of "preaching" in the Body. (most of it took place outside of the meetings of the Body. Most preaching was to unbelievers!)

Wow, Jon that is some impressive psycho-babble. I guess you did learn something in seminary. Just not how to interpret scripture correctly. You must have been posting comments online during those classes.

You posted part of my question and then gave an obtuse answer.

Here is the full question:

Really?Who are they?Please give us some names and a list of fulfilled prophesies.

Try again.You can do it.

Surely you wouldn't make such a claim without having any evidence to back it up.

The familiar command, "Touch Not the Lord's Anointed," appears in Psalm 105:15. So that we can see what God is talking about here, let us quote the entire passage, starting with verse 10:

"And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance; When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. When they went from one nation to another, and from one kingdom to another people; He suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." (Psalm 105:10-15.)

Many preachers and evangelists today teach that if anyone criticizes them, or finds fault with them in army way, or goes against their wishes, then that miserable sinner has "Touched the Lord's anointed." Many eloquent sermons, rivaling Dante's Inferno in ferocity, have been preached to warn those who would dare commit such a sin that they face the unmitigated wrath of Almighty God. But is what that verse really talking about?

The immediate context of the verse is a reference to the patriarch Jacob, who was not an ordained preacher, at least not as we would understand that concept today. Just what kind of hazard was Jacob in fear of as he wandered from one nation to another people? Did he live in mortal dread that someone, somewhere, would criticize him? No, his concern was that the heathen would use physical violence against him. Read his complaint in Genesis 34:30: "And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house."

It is clear that to touch the Lord's anointed is to commit an act of physical violence against the one anointed by God. It does not refer to those who verbally attack and criticize a preacher and his doctrine. Such verbal attacks may be quite wrong and sinful, and in some cases they may be commendable and necessary (see Jesus criticizing the Pharisees in Matthew 23, Paul criticizing Peter in Galatians 2:14-21, Paul versus the Judaizers in Galatians 5:12, Philippians 3:2, etc.) but they are not covered by the idea "Touch not the Lord's anointed."

The familiar command, "Touch Not the Lord's Anointed," appears in Psalm 105:15. So that we can see what God is talking about here, let us quote the entire passage, starting with verse 10:

"And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance; When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. When they went from one nation to another, and from one kingdom to another people; He suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." (Psalm 105:10-15.)

Many preachers and evangelists today teach that if anyone criticizes them, or finds fault with them in army way, or goes against their wishes, then that miserable sinner has "Touched the Lord's anointed." Many eloquent sermons, rivaling Dante's Inferno in ferocity, have been preached to warn those who would dare commit such a sin that they face the unmitigated wrath of Almighty God. But is what that verse really talking about?

The immediate context of the verse is a reference to the patriarch Jacob, who was not an ordained preacher, at least not as we would understand that concept today. Just what kind of hazard was Jacob in fear of as he wandered from one nation to another people? Did he live in mortal dread that someone, somewhere, would criticize him? No, his concern was that the heathen would use physical violence against him. Read his complaint in Genesis 34:30: "And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house."

It is clear that to touch the Lord's anointed is to commit an act of physical violence against the one anointed by God. It does not refer to those who verbally attack and criticize a preacher and his doctrine. Such verbal attacks may be quite wrong and sinful, and in some cases they may be commendable and necessary (see Jesus criticizing the Pharisees in Matthew 23, Paul criticizing Peter in Galatians 2:14-21, Paul versus the Judaizers in Galatians 5:12, Philippians 3:2, etc.) but they are not covered by the idea "Touch not the Lord's anointed."

"Now if you think there are not, you need to take it up with scripture."

Nice try Jon. Why are you trying so hard to switch the burden on proof onto me when it is you who is making the claim? It seems like you don't want to defend your position. I hope that is not the case.

Again, I haven't stated my position. You have. You are responsible for defending it.

On a related note, since we don't have Kings in America, is it also a sin to criticize the monarch of another nation? Which nation?

March 16, 2011 5:03 PM

LOL! I am serious when I tell you I have heard some Calvinists claim America sinned by rebelling against the King of England. And some claim we are rebellious and do not understand authority because we have not lived under a Monarch....as if that is a bad thing. As if we should give allegiance to a human as divinly appointed. Kinda sounds like Jon.

Jon,You say you knew Adrian Rogers and even refer to him as “divinely inspired.” Then you have to know that your participation on this blog, which even though I appreciate, is contrary to his teaching.

"Prophet = Men divinely inspired to speak on God's behalf to the masses about the things present of God and things coming from God."

OK Jon. You are making progress.

But now I wonder (if you had an answer all along) why I had to ask you five or six times before you responded. I also wonder why you stated that you didn't need to give an answer and then you did. Were you wrong when you said that you didn't need to give an answer?

I also noticed that you skipped the second part of my question (again) concerning a list of fulfilled prophesies. That is part of the definition of prophet right? The definition says that the prophet speaks on behalf of God about things present AND things go come. Notice the word OR is not used. So where are the fulfilled prophecies from the men you listed? If you are going to claim that they fit the definition you gave, we are going to need to see some evidence just like the prophets in the OT.

Also where did your definition come from and what scriptures are you using to justify it?

I sat under the ministry of Dr. Adrian Rogers for over 2 decades and I can assure you that he did not think of himself as a prophet and never considered himself above criticism.

Also up for consideration, how is "touching" the same as criticizing especially when you consider that in context Jacob was fearing for his life at the time it was written. Was Jesus wrong to criticize the spiritual leaders of his day? How do kings fit in today?

So, according to your interpretation, are these the only 4 men that we are not allowed to criticize or are there others?

Well, you said that you didn't need to name any current day prophets, and then after being asking several times, you named four that you knew. Not sure why it took so much coaxing. But, I'm going to assume that you are going to change your mind again. Otherwise I will have to assume that you can't defend your position. Either that or change your interpretation. That would be the more prudent choice.

"Some want to only ask and not really have a dialog."

OK, now you have me really confused, because I thought that a dialog was made up of asking questions and giving of answers. Why is it like pulling teeth to try to get you to show evidence for you interpretation? It seems like you are getting defensive because I am asking questions that expose the fact that your interpretation is faulty.

"I have no interest in that game."

I'm not sure how asking logical follow-up questions and pointing out possible conflicts in your interpretation could be considered a game. Stand to Reason endorses this method for exposing faulty thinking. It's not a game. It's a method of apologetics. As a general rule the person defending their incorrect position usually gets angry and refuses to answer questions when they are exposed. Sound familiar?

"I have no qualms if you agree or disagree with my list."

Once again, I have not stated my position on the men you named. It is your job to defend the statement you have made with empirical evidence.

"It matters not if they considered themselves prophets."

This is what is known as a self-contradictory statement. If the men you mentioned are indeed prophets as you have stated, then according to your own definition, it does matter whether they considered themselves prophets or not.

What you are basically saying is that it doesn't matter that a true prophet doesn't believe he is indeed a true prophet. What matters is that you believe he is a true prophet. That's all we are left with since you offered no evidence.

"If you want to discuss this with both sides talking to each other instead of your side only talk at the other, maybe I'll be interested in such an event."

Not sure it would be worth the effort if your comments at the "event" were no more compelling than they have been here so far.

"Call me names for not playing your game if you need to, it matters not."

Straw man argument. I have called you no names, and I am only asking you to defend your interpretation with evidence. Please stop me when the logic breaks down.

"out for now."

Sounds like an admission of defeat to me. Especially since you still haven't given any evidence that these men are prophets. Where is the fulfilled prophecy? There should be a list from each one if these men are prophets by the definition you gave and by the standards of the OT prophets.

I'll repeat it since you didn't answer this question either: how is "touching" the same as criticizing?

How are we ever to know who not to criticize (according to your interpretation) if you can't even give evidence for one modern day prophet?

I'm beginning to agree with the other poster. This is why most preachers want to stand in the pulpit and never let anyone else speak (as they did in the first century).

How many people would continue to come back week after week when the pastor can't defend his position any better than this?

In context, your interpretation of Psalm 105: 15 is erroneous.

And since you can give no evidence of modern day prophets, your interpretation is also moot.

Well, you said that you didn't need to name any current day prophets, and then after being asking several times, you named four that you knew. Not sure why it took so much coaxing. But, I'm going to assume that you are going to change your mind again. Otherwise I will have to assume that you can't defend your position. Either that or change your interpretation. That would be the more prudent choice.

"Some want to only ask and not really have a dialog."

OK, now you have me really confused, because I thought that a dialog was made up of asking questions and giving of answers. Why is it like pulling teeth to try to get you to show evidence for you interpretation? It seems like you are getting defensive because I am asking questions that expose the fact that your interpretation is faulty.

"I have no interest in that game."

I'm not sure how asking logical follow-up questions and pointing out possible conflicts in your interpretation could be considered a game. Stand to Reason endorses this method for exposing faulty thinking. It's not a game. It's a method of apologetics. As a general rule the person defending their incorrect position usually gets angry and refuses to answer questions when they are exposed. Sound familiar?

Once again, I have not stated my position on the men you named. It is your job to defend the statement you have made with empirical evidence.

"It matters not if they considered themselves prophets."

This is what is known as a self-contradictory statement. If the men you mentioned are indeed prophets as you have stated, then according to your own definition, it does matter whether they considered themselves prophets or not.

What you are basically saying is that it doesn't matter that a true prophet doesn't believe he is indeed a true prophet. What matters is that you believe he is a true prophet. That's all we are left with since you offered no evidence.

Sounds like an admission of defeat to me. Especially since you still haven't given any evidence that these men are prophets. Where is the fulfilled prophecy? There should be a list from each one if these men are prophets by the definition you gave and by the standards of the OT prophets.

I'll repeat it since you didn't answer this question either: how is "touching" the same as criticizing?

How are we ever to know who not to criticize (according to your interpretation) if you can't even give evidence for one modern day prophet?

I'm beginning to agree with the other poster. This is why most preachers want to stand in the pulpit and never let anyone else speak (as they did in the first century).

How many people would continue to come back week after week when the pastor can't defend his position any better than this?

In context, your interpretation of Psalm 105: 15 is erroneous.

And since you can give no evidence of modern day prophets, your interpretation is also moot.

I'm not sure how asking logical follow-up questions and pointing out possible conflicts in your interpretation could be considered a game. Stand to Reason endorses this method for exposing faulty thinking. It's not a game. It's a method of apologetics. As a general rule the person defending their incorrect position usually gets angry and refuses to answer questions when they are exposed. Sound familiar?"

EXACTLY. Thanks for your comments...they are hitting on what is going on and what has gone on with way too many preachers when they are questioned about what they teach.

"I'm beginning to agree with the other poster. This is why most preachers want to stand in the pulpit and never let anyone else speak (as they did in the first century).

How many people would continue to come back week after week when the pastor can't defend his position any better than this?"

This is why I have called this traditional (man made) method "dangerous". There is not enough questioning. And we pay them NOT to defend from the Word what they teach. We pay them NOT to be questioned on what they teach.

This reminds me of the time Les Puryear was on this site ranting about the tithe. When he was asked a few simple questions like why the OT Israelites paid 25% and we only pay 10%, he said he would have to do some research and get back to us.

That was the last we ever ever heard from him here (over a year ago). It amazes me how easily these guys are exposed when they are forced to answer a few simple questions about their teachings.

About Me

We're small, insignificant, and harmless. But we have a loud, piercing bark that seems to annoy those in mega churches the most. Not Kool-Aid drinkers, only fresh, filtered water, please; with Grape or Cherry flavoring from Walmart. "Let him alone; God hath bidden him to speak:"